Why does everyone always choose AMD ??

[caz67]

Hi .

Thanks for you help.

I need a system built from ground up. I want speakers , monitor, drives etc.

I am willing to spend all of the $2500.00.

Your help in this will be appreciated.

cheers

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: caz67
Hi .

Thanks for you help.

I need a system built from ground up. I want speakers , monitor, drives etc.

I am willing to spend all of the $2500.00.

Your help in this will be appreciated.

cheers

You should check out Anands Cutting Edge Computer Buyers guide.

 

[Fraggster]

Originally posted by: nick1985
A64 > P4

thats why.

:beer:

 

[colonel]

I ve been building machines for myself, family, friends and now for other people around since 1999 after the first Athlon socket A chip with 3Dnow and I never bought a Intel chip so far.......

 

[caz67]

You should check out Anands Cutting Edge Computer Buyers guide.

Will do.!!

cheers

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: caz67

You should check out Anands Cutting Edge Computer Buyers guide.

Will do.!!

cheers

Bravo! for willing to be open minded instead of fanatically chanting Intel rulz or something :beer:

 

[Octoberblue]

Perhaps it's different in Australia, but here in the U.S. Intel is very overpriced compared to AMD. It is also pretty well known that AMD is not "budget" quality in the mid-90's sense (or the VIA CPU-sense) at all. These are now very high quality parts, extremely reliable and fast.

Again, perhaps the price-performance situation is different in Australia as companies do price very differently in different countries (ie: Sony Camcorders are always at least $200 cheaper in China). The only scenario where I personally would use Intel is if I had: 1) a need for the very fastest media encoding machine I could get and,
2) a very comfortable budget that could afford to pay $300+ premium over AMD to get that machine.

Oh yes, and one other scenariou would be if I was buying a laptop and a halfway decent budget. Then the Pentium-M along with other Centrino "stuff" would be well worth it, especially from Dell or other large oem with good prices.

 

[nageov3t]

I hate P4 motherboards. especially the heat sinks.

has nothing to do with the chips themselves, but mobos for AMD processors tend to look a lot sharper

 

[farscape]

I'm also not adverse to spending money for quality (heck, my target setup ran me over $1500.00), and if I had my way all of the time I would be broke from spending on computers - and I've had a few over the last few years - from my first 386SX to my current system. But I've learned that one's eyes cannot be bigger that one's pocketbook - marriage, kids, a mortgage, utility bills, college tuition, etc. do that to you. After a lot of research, I look for and pick the best bang-for-buck products I can find. AMD gives me that - and the next time I rebuild, it'll be AMD again. Never have had a problem with performance, incompatibility - no probs at all. I might not be 'state of the art' at this moment, but then I don't have to be - I do everything I need to - and that's what matters.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Yourself

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i like supporting the only company keeping intel from r@ping us.

Lol....put the shoe on the other foot and take Intel out of the equation. The AMD rapefest would begin immediately....

won't happen. at this point intel is charging way more for its chips, not based on performance alone, but marketing. walk into an electronics store and you'll here joe shmoe or more likely jane schmoe? you hear "oh that ones got more ghz, its faster!"...intels got em worked real good. if amd for some reason leaps ahead and starts charging like intel, well, people like me will buy cheap intel chips instead.

I understand you're an AMD fan, I am too, but don't blame Intel for this one. It's nobody's fault, really. It's also not completely untrue. MHz does = performance in a relative situation (ie. higher-MHz A64 = higher-performance A64). The "myth" was created back in the days when the highest-MHz CPU WAS the best performer. The idea that you should look for the highest MHz rating trickled down to the lowest-common-denominator (ie. Joe Schmo, doesn't know shite about computers) and that's what they held on to because that's what they understood.

When you say it's Intel's fault, you imply that Intel over the past few years when its processors were losing the MHz/IPC battle started advertising "Come to Intel because our clock speeds are higher than AMD's." They have never had an ad that claimed that they were the faster processor SOLELY because of clock speed and been wrong.

 

[nemesismk2]

The reason I have always used AMD processors is because they have always been very good value for money. I started off with:-

amd 386 dx 40mhz
amd 486 dx4 100mhz
intel pentium 75mhz (I must of been on drugs!)
amd k6 200mhz
amd k6 II 333mhz
amd k6 II 550mhz
amd duron 750mhz
amd duron 900mhz
amd athlon 1.3ghz tbird
amd athlon xp 1700 tbed b
amd athlon xp 2500 barton
amd athlon xp 3200 barton
amd athlon64 3400 (ASAP)

 

[caz67]

I just read the review on the FX-53..Man that is fast.

But seriously what programs , games etc,would ever even make a CPU like that sweat?

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: caz67
I just read the review on the FX-53..Man that is fast.

But seriously what programs , games etc,would ever even make a CPU like that sweat?

Outside of workstation-specific apps? Games.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: caz67
Hi .

Thanks for you help.

I need a system built from ground up. I want speakers , monitor, drives etc.

I am willing to spend all of the $2500.00.

Your help in this will be appreciated.

cheers

OK guys, he wants to buy a system. I'm busy now, pick one out for him ! I configured one on newegg, and shared it and tried to link to it, but couldn;t. Somebody help this guy out ! (you can;t spend $2500??)

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
The reason I have always used AMD processors is because they have always been very good value for money. I started off with:-

amd 386 dx 40mhz
amd 486 dx4 100mhz
intel pentium 75mhz (I must of been on drugs!)
amd k6 200mhz
amd k6 II 333mhz
amd k6 II 550mhz
amd duron 750mhz
amd duron 900mhz
amd athlon 1.3ghz tbird
amd athlon xp 1700 tbed b
amd athlon xp 2500 barton
amd athlon xp 3200 barton
amd athlon64 3400 (ASAP)

Wow! I never even heard of AMD till athlon. I'm getting the 3400 too.. all amd fans should buck up once in a while

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I'm getting the 3400 too.. all amd fans should buck up once in a while

:beer:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
Yeah, but 399fps vs 400fps just sounds better than 396.

399 vs 400 = "within testing tolerances"

396 vs 400 = "total ownage!!!111"

 

[pdqcarrera]

..."everyone" doesn't buy AMD over Intel, although it may seem like it here in technonerdville (affectionate reference ;-).

This reminds me in some ways of Ford vs. Chevy and other examples where brand loyalties, performance statistics and price to value realities vs. perceptions all tend to collide.

Personally, my psyche just always leans towards Intel. Not embarrassed to admit either it may not always be based on pure engineering logical, but perhaps somewhat due to brand loyalty brought on by having friends work there, appreciating their history, etc. and yet I'm VERY glad they have competition from AMD and frankly wish they had even more competitors.

In any case, for ~$280 I am VERY pleased with my P4-2.8C and Asus P4S800D-E Deluxe mobo combination (running at 3.2mhz with no temp or other problems -- doesn't seem to even knows it's been overclocked at all) . All the performance and features are awesome and leading edge (for this week anyway) and at a great price.

CHEERS! T*G*I*F



"Until the Athlon64 series, the Intel processors were dominating SPECviewperf benchmarks. It now looks like the 875/865 has met their match. Performance of the SiS655TX boards is as good as we have seen with Intel processors."

 

[arcenite]

AMD 4 LIFE.

My 60$ 1.4Ghz cpu has been running for many months (maybe a year?) @ 2.3Ghz. What chip could I buy from intel, that even nearly matches the original speed, for 60 bucks? Intel is way overpriced when it comes to price/performance.

Bill

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
I can't speak for anyone but speaking for myself it is a price/performance issue- and it effects the AMD/Intel balance on two different fronts.

First off is the general processor performance versus price issue. You can almost always buy a chip that has ~85% of the performance of the top tier parts for ~20% of the price, throw in a nice overclock and you are all set. To me that makes buying a top tier processor a ludicrous proposition. To be clear, if the performance difference warranted the cost then I'd have no problem spending the extra money. I have ~$200 headphones and a ~$700 CRT- I'll spend more money without issue if I think it's worth it. Dropping an extra $500 for 10FPS? No.

Since that general rule of thumb is out(and I apply price/performance to all things, not just PC hardware), then it comes down to the chips in the lower priced(~$100-$200) bracket and how they stack up. Here is where Intel overcharges by a rather enormous amount compared to their counterpart. They simply are not competitive in this market segment normally, not even close frequently. Not all that long ago Intel was on their whole RAMBUS kick which really helped out AMD in the enthusiast market. Either you went the only slightly more then AMD route and paired a P4 with SDRAM and had horrible performance, or you paid a couple hundred percent more for roughly equal performance. This may sound like a good reason for a while back but not today, you still have people with AMD mobos that will take a more up to date AXP, that makes sticking with AMD a fairly easy choice.

Right now at the highest end of the market AMD is dominant in gaming- cost no object. Factor in cost and it is a more dire situation for Intel. Intel is doing well in the middle high end range right now, but the mid and budget lines are pretty much dominated by AMD in terms of dollars/performance. For most of the people on these forums, gaming is what drives them to spend as much money as they do on hardware. For those that are more interested in bragging rights, gaming benches are the ones that are the staple of that line of reasoning too.

Brand identity doesn't have much to do with processors outside of your genuine fans. They all work on the same code, which one gets it done quicker or for less- or some combination of both which is the case most of the time- is going to be the driving factor for the majority of the enthusiast market. This same market likes to shop in the ~$150 range of chips(they tend to upgrade every year to year and a half with two years at the outside). Factor these things in and it is pretty hard to justify Intel most of the time.

Mainly my post is focusing on gaming- the advantages you bring up for the P4 such as media encoding(I rip my CDs once, don't do much with AVI on my PC) aren't frequent typical use here. Multitasking advantages are pretty hard to convince people of if they can't see any slowdown at all with their current processor and are thinking of upgrading beyond that. You find a forum with tech enthusiasts that revolves around media encoding and the like and you will probably find they lean as much towards Intel as these boards do towards AMD.

Well said. Price has nothing to do with it for me. I could afford an 64FX or EE pentium, 9800XT, all scsi 15000rpm in Raid 0, promedia etc but what the hell for? 20-25% more performance for 500% more money? Ya that's real intelligent allocation of resources when even a Duron/xp with 5900NU is plenty fast for me in every app I've tried. I prefer to buy my son a new mototcycle or just bank the difference or buy stuff where I will really notice striking differences. AMD is the heavy weight champion of price performance. Just look at the 4 recent buyers guides here, all AMD and all signifigantly less money for equal or better performance. And Video cards are the most drastic improvement a gamer can make not the processor.


Where you people *should* be paying the premium prices is things you don't because you pay too much attention to frame rates/memory bandwith/benchmarks since it's a simple quantification being they are numerically decided in your hardware, however insignifigant they are you notice for some strange reason. Things people should be paying attention to are computing interface like highend monitors which make a dramtic improvment to your computing experiance over cheap ones. A high qulaity mouse and tactile keyboard that conforms to you hand and feels very comfortable for better feel more pleasant experiance in general and elimination carpel. Speakers which there is wide variation and $200 is well spent. Highquality case and PSU for asthetic/stability/noise issues. Cable modem/DSL for obvious reasons.



Anyway I think everyone in the know should choose AMD simply to keep them around so intel deos'nt begin charging $500 for their chips again. Then we are all screwed again.

Agreed.

Or, to put it in a slightly shorter way: I have money cause I don't waste it

 

[Jalapeno]

My first build was a Pentium 133 - just got my feet wet... I switched over to AMD, and although they were excellent performers they sucked monkey balls in the "temperature department" i.e. no thermal diode. I have lost a many to a premature heat death (overclocking). That's when I switched to INTEL.

About three weeks ago I seriously considered going back to AMD (2500 Mobile BARTON, ABIT NFS) and OC the hell out of it, but reading in many forums virtually nobody was able to push it beyond 2.6 GHz, I reconsidered. The reason I didn't go the AMD path? New board with a dying socket and chipset, which will be obsolete soon.

I opted to drop a new P4 3.06GHz into my existing ABIT IT7MAX2 und clock it to 3.73GHz so far.

AMD64 or P4EE? Not worth the $$$$$$$

For gaming I'll buy me a PS2 and a shitload of games for that kind of money.

 

[GOZ]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: RickH
Both AMD and Intel make fine products. In my experence AMD is cheaper to purchase, but more expensive to live with. You save $50-100 on the CPU and end up spending it on huge fans and powersupplies. Then you spend more $$ trying to kill the noise. I can't even tell if my PIV is on right now. The only noise is from the HD. R

That might have been true long ago, but my Barton 2500 uses stock cooling, I can barely hear it, and it run 45c max load. My Athlon64 3000+ runs cooler than the P4 3.0c, mine runs 32c, and gets up to a whopping 40c under 100% load (seti) after hours on a warm day. So that argument doesn't fly anymore.

My 2.8c@3.4 gig runs lets see(looking at MB moniter lol) at 21c at idle or on the net and 32c loaded with sandra 2004. ON the stock intel heat sink. you can't go by yours runs cooler, AMD more voltage=more heat duh. So i laugh at your 32c and 40c LOL The Goz

 

[Jalapeno]

Ooops, misposted...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: GOZ

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: RickH
Both AMD and Intel make fine products. In my experence AMD is cheaper to purchase, but more expensive to live with. You save $50-100 on the CPU and end up spending it on huge fans and powersupplies. Then you spend more $$ trying to kill the noise. I can't even tell if my PIV is on right now. The only noise is from the HD. R

That might have been true long ago, but my Barton 2500 uses stock cooling, I can barely hear it, and it run 45c max load. My Athlon64 3000+ runs cooler than the P4 3.0c, mine runs 32c, and gets up to a whopping 40c under 100% load (seti) after hours on a warm day. So that argument doesn't fly anymore.

My 2.8c@3.4 gig runs lets see(looking at MB moniter lol) at 21c at idle or on the net and 32c loaded with sandra 2004. ON the stock intel heat sink. you can't go by yours runs cooler, AMD more voltage=more heat duh. So i laugh at your 32c and 40c LOL The Goz

Well, I don't know how your CPU can be cooler than my house temperature. Maybe you live in Siberia, and have the heat on low ? (21c=69.8F, my house is 72F)
So I laugh at you freezing to death to prove you P4 is cooler than my Athlon64. Its all over the web, that an Athlon 3000+ on stock cooling runs cooler than a P4 3.0c on stock cooling in the same case in the same abient temperature. I would say chill out, but you must be already freezing......

 

[Jalapeno]

My 2.8c@3.4 gig runs lets see(looking at MB moniter lol) at 21c at idle or on the net and 32c loaded with sandra 2004. ON the stock intel heat sink. you can't go by yours runs cooler, AMD more voltage=more heat duh. So i laugh at your 32c and 40c LOL The Goz

Do not believe what your "MB moniter" tells you. Depending on one's setup it is "marginally accurate" in telling temps, at best.